Talk:Hedge
Mason/Leper There seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence for Hedge as candidate for these positions but is there actually anything definite? Should all of it go under speculations? Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 13:26, April 10, 2018 (UTC) :1st - as to Leper, there's this:The Crippled God, Chapter 24, US HC p.824-825 Bantam UK HB should have the same pages. ::"In the ghoulish light on the hill with the marines waiting for the CG drew out the House of Chains. The lacquered wooden cards slipped about in his hands as if coated in grease. He squinted down at them, slowly worked his way through each one, studying it in turn. Seven cards. Six felt cool to his touch. Only one glistened with sweat. ::"Leper. ::"Aw, Hedge. I'm so sorry for that." :I've always assumed that this meant that at this point Hedge was Leper of House of Chains because Fiddler had been doing his best to have nothing to do with Hedge. :2nd - as to Leper, there's also this, more ambiguous, reference:The Crippled God, Chapter 17, US HC p.489 ::" Urugal Woven had scraped seven symbols on the ground the Glass Desert. He now pointed to each in turn and said, 'The Consort. She who is known to us. The Reaver - there are two faces. One man. One woman. Knight, we have spoken of...The Unbound - we T'lan Imass, for now, but that will change. Cripple, he whose mind must crawl to serve the sacred life within him. Leper, that which is both living and dead. Fool, the threat from within. All, then, but the Knight walk among the mortals in our keeping the Bonehunters. Here. Now.' " :I *think* that " Leper, that which is both living and dead. " is meant to be a reference to 'Dead' Hedge. :3rd - as to Mason, there is the illustration in the article, itself, by the artist, "Johntocaelpiano" - labelled "The Mason" and subtitled "Interpretation of Hedge". According to the information given in the 'Artist's Comments' section for "Johntocaelpiano" for this particular image in the "Fan Art Images" section of the wiki, the episode illustrated is correctly identified.Memories of Ice, Chapter 25, UK MMPB p.1081 / Memories of Ice, Chapter 25, TOR US HC/TOR US TPB p.709-710 This illustration was also "Fan Art Image of the Week" for 09 June 2015. The artist states that Hedge upon dying became the Mason of High House Death, but gives no reference for that statement. Perhaps someone could ask the artist about it. Pcwrcw (talk) 06:02, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :::Those examples, they are the circumstantial evidence I was talking about... you yourself use words like 'assume' and 'think' in relation to those passages. The 'I am sorry' bit could simply refer to Hedge being affected by the Leper's identity. I do think the evidence is in favour but it just isn't a proven fact. As for the Mason, currently we have no referenced evidence within the text for that status. I think that unless the position of someone is stated as a definite in the books (for example DP entry or reader of Deck identifying the person in a definite manner), we should add all deductions of Deck of Dragons identities under the speculations section.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 08:37, April 12, 2018 (UTC) ::::Whatever you think is best, Egwene. I wasn't trying to make a case for, or against, Hedge holding those positions. I was just listing some things which I've run across from time to time in my readings of CG which seemed to have some bearing on the question. I also wasn't exactly clear on how you were defining 'proven' - I now understand better your position on what to consider 'proof' in this type of situation. I see no difficulty with considering the possible Mason/Leper positions for Hedge as speculative. Did you want me to delete the material I gave above? I have no problem doing so if you think it might be misleading to potential readers. Pcwrcw (talk) 00:46, April 13, 2018 (UTC) I was hoping you (and others) would be making a case for or against - that is the point of these article talk pages that we can discuss the best way to present information, what information should or should not be included etc. also allowing readers to follow the thought process - so, no, don't delete anything :) The addition of Leper by a guest editor just made me think over the whole issue of assigning positions in the Deck to individuals and I came to the conclusion that whilst a large percentage of the fan base may agree on certain characters in certain positions, that does not change the fact that some are favourite theories rather than positions unequivocally confirmed by author. My preference would be to re-examine all Deck of Dragons entries and move those which are based on circumstantial evidence to speculations. As I said, that is my view - what is your preference? Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 10:05, April 13, 2018 (UTC) ::Ah. OK, now I see where you're coming from. (Excuse the following - I'm just 'thinking aloud', and I won't be saying anything which you, Egwene, don't already know and which is not already nicely covered in the article Deck of Dragons. Skip as necessary.) ::I do think that there has been a tendency for readers and wiki contributors (as well as SE) to conflate/confuse two separate things: :::First, the very 'real' pantheon/collective which is made up of all of the various "High Houses" - along with those individual members who are "Unaligned" with any particular High House, but who are still part of the same pantheon/collective (along with their "Associated Ascendants"); and :::Second, (the uncountable number of copies of) the "Deck of Dragons", which are not part of the High Houses' pantheon/collective but which have their own separate existence. The Decks can be magically and metaphysically connected to the Houses in some unspecified fashion. The Decks evolved and/or were developed (from the example of the "Elder Holds"/"Tiles", probably) as a tool for divination by accessing the Houses so that Adepts could 'read' them in order to foretell the future and/or to gain insight into hidden knowledge. think of 'Tarot Cards' and the 'I Ching' in this connection. ::The "Associated Ascendants" of the High Houses tend to be relatively fixed, although changes can and do happen. I think that confusion often arises when, in one of the Malazan books, a reading of the Deck results with a particular card of the Deck being identified with a specific individual or object – either directly or, far more usually, extremely ambiguously. When this happens it usually does not represent a change in the actual membership of the High House, but rather is a relatively short term connection which is an artifact of using the Deck of Dragons for divination purposes. When this happens, I think that readers often have a tendency to then 'officially' assign that particular individual (sometimes the 'wrong' individual) more or less 'permanently' to that particular position in the relevant High House – a conclusion which is probably rarely warranted. ::Well, Egwene, I agree with you that there is a real problem here, but I’m not sure that I see a short, straightforward way of handling it. It would seem to involve carefully analyzing all the Malazan books with this issue in mind and/or backtracking existing articles to insert 'speculative' language where indicated. Perhaps, for now, the situation can be addressed as it comes up – as it did with Hedge and the Mason/Leper issue? am I overthinking things again?? Pcwrcw (talk) 04:16, April 14, 2018 (UTC) ::::Great analysis, Pcwrcw. I agree that for the time being we make the changes adhoc - I'll add a note to DCT to put it on the project's list. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 13:14, April 14, 2018 (UTC) Notes and references